Pascal, more than Programming

Today, I presented my EPAW model. It became part of a discussion with a guy on twitter.  He suggested I was reverting (like a hail mary pass) to the Pascal Wager.  What can I say? Although it is not the best reason to become a believer, it is certainly a logical conclusion to the dilemma.  Frankly, why would someone not consider the question, "What's happens if I am wrong?"  I do not intend this to be the point of persuasion for becoming a believer.  I simply think it to be very prudent to evaluate what happens at the end of this life.  The scripture says it best.  So you can decide for yourself.  Or... don't and take that blind leap and find out by investigation and verification.  I suppose that if you have read these words, you are remembering them right now.

April 26, 2017 Update:
For quite some time, I have turned over in my mind what is the best approach to addressing the controversy over the existence of God and what the answer to that question means.  This week, while thinking on a recent discussion on the subject, it came to my mind to ask a question that might help to resolve at least in part this dilemma;
 Although you believe that God does not exist, or are at least uncertain, If God does exist, wouldn't you want to know it?
I would anticipate three or four possible responses that would lead into additional conversation:

1.  The most likely response is, "I don't believe in God, so I don't care to answer that question."  There is an ostrich head in the sand with a response like this.  In other words, this is a person who is not interested in pursuing truth, but instead holding to dogma, rhetoric, etc.
2. A similar response would likely be aimed at some form of addressing Pascal's wager.  Let me point out that this too is intellectually dishonest.  We seem to have a mania, as evidenced by the multi-millions of dollars spent on it, in the search for life on other planets.  It is not enough that life may or may not exist on some other planet.  What is the significance?  Regardless, the obsession is paramount in the minds of many, yet these same people would rather invoke a vain argument against an infinitely more imperative quest for truth.
3. The third possibility is "No"... but this is in essence the same as response number one.
4. In the rare event that the answer is "Yes", the conversation opens to a myriad of possibilities, but the one that seems very fitting is, "If you mean that, you should say this prayer: God, if you are real, reveal yourself to me."  If the person is sincere, I am confident that God will answer.  It is important to emphasize the importance of keeping an open mind and an attentive heart.  

I can't be sure how this will go until I have a chance to try it, but I hope to take the first opportunity to do so.

Dear Skeptic Part 4 (E.P.A.W.)

I think we all get light bulb ideas in the middle of the night. Last night, I was thinking on the conflict between evolutionism & creationism. I have discovered a philosophical model that is at the core of the debate. I like to call it EPAW, and it looks something like this:

E- evidence: The evidence is the natural world & the cosmos. It got here somehow. Was it created or did it self exist?

P- problem: The single most significant application of this question is the problem of single-cell organisms; how did the first one generate? There is no answer for this  with the scientific method. It reduces to a matter of faith.

A- application: How much time do you have left in this life? Thinking about this question definitely changed for me when I reached the top of the 'hill', the human half-life. Time is a friend to no one especially if you are on the wrong side of our debate which brings us to the final branch of the model...

W- what if you are wrong? I mean what are the consequences?... It applies no matter where you find yourself in this debate.  I will let you answer this question for yourself.

I certainly hope you will clear the table of all previous notions just long enough to give this some honest consideration.